Saturday, June 7, 2014

I've deleted the pic of this person to save him serious public embarrassment.

First comment, I find it hard to believe he is as smart as he claims if he became a lawyer while avowing to be an outlaw. He's sort of admitted that he can't function under the ethics rules here and might get a reprimand from the ethics board.

Other things that are amusing is that he lives in Philadelphia, which should be hell for him given his political viewpoint. I wonder how he reacts to Odunde? I bet that makes him go apoplectic! How does he cope with gays, as well as the blacks, in Philly? Not sure what he does for a living since he doesn't (or can't) practise law as well.

Also, there is a serious disconnect in thinking that EMP would allow him to watch reruns of Little House and Lawrence Welk. He probably doesn't want it to wipe out the internet so he can connect with other whackjobs.

Electro Magnetic Pulse: Something which can occur either naturally with a solar flare or through a nuclear burst. It would shut all the electronics down completely. Dude, you are so not prepared for when the shit hits the fan.

Just last fall, Jalon Bea and Tanielu Lotovaivai were young men going places.

Described as affable, ambitious and hard-working, both had bright futures ahead of them, their families and friends said.

Lotovaivai’s decision to point what he thought was an unloaded gun at Bea and pull the trigger ended all that.

Bea, 17, died after being shot in the chest. Lotovaivai was arrested and earlier this year pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter.

On Friday, all the pain and misery that decision spawned came to a head in Pierce County Superior Court, where Lotovaivai was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Tears flowed freely on both sides of the gallery.

That is where someone infiltrates a "conservative" facebook page, becomes an admin, and then the page "owner" is locked out while goats take over the page.

There is something very satisfying in seeing the insane right looking sillier than they normally do.

But, there is one person who is a god amongst those who are in this movement--BUSTA TROLL!

For those of you who do not know this hero of the Internet--this is a message from the person herself.

Busta Troll a woman? Now, wouldn't that be a real surprise for the reality challenged right who sees the feminine species as being of two varieties: Madonnas or Whores. Women are too dumb to do something like a goating, let alone many goatings.

But, it seems that the goatings will keep on wherever the reality challenged right wing exists.

In simple terms,

I would love to claim to be Busta Troll, but I am not her.

Anyone who knows me well would know that is far too much work for me to
want to be bothered with. Not to mention I find dealing with the
reality challenged right can lead to one going crazy as well.

Gun rights activist John David Murphy stands outside his voting precinct with his firearm in Alabaster, Ala., on Tuesday, June 3, 2014. Murphy ignored a "no weapons" sign and entered to vote in Alabama's party primary with his weapon in his holster, but a deputy who made the man disarm before casting his ballot. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves)

An Alabama gun rights supporter who took a loaded pistol to the polls Tuesday got to vote, but only after putting the weapon in his pickup truck.

John David Murphy wore his holstered 9 mm handgun and two ammunition magazines into First United Methodist Church of Alabaster when he went to vote in the Republican primary.

The church, like other precincts, had a sign in the door saying firearms are prohibited. But Murphy told a poll worker that his constitutional right to openly carry a weapon trumps a state law allowing guns in public places unless a sign is posted.

A poll worker called a Shelby County deputy, who made Murphy put the gun in his truck outside before voting. City police arrived as a precaution and left after Murphy left the polling place.

A man with a shotgun walked into a building on the Seattle Pacific University campus, shot three people, fatally wounding one, and was reloading when a student security guard pepper-sprayed him and he and other students disarmed him, Seattle police said. The suspect, identified as a 26-year-old white male, was taken into custody.

Law enforcement sources later identified the suspect as Aaron Ybarra, 26, of Mountlake Terrace, Wash.

Police said the suspect was not a student at the school. “So far, police have not found any connection between the suspect, Seattle Pacific University or any of the victims,” a police news release said.

He is going to booked into the King County Jail for investigation of murder, police said.

Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center said it had received four patients from the shooting: One of those, a 19-year-old man, died of his wounds, hospital spokeswoman Susan Gregg said. She added that a female in her 20s was undergoing surgery and was in critical condition. Two other men in their 20s were in satisfactory condition, adding that one of those appeared to have only minor physical injuries but was going through emotional trauma.

The National Rifle Association has rolled back an earlier statement criticizing “open carry” rallies in Texas in which gun rights advocates have brought military-style assault rifles into public places.

Chris Cox, the executive director of the group’s lobbying arm, said in an interview Tuesday on an NRA-hosted radioshowthat the statement was “a mistake” and that it was written by a staffer who was expressing his personal opinion.

“The truth is, an alert went out that referred to this type of behavior as ‘weird’ or somehow not normal, and that was a mistake. It shouldn’t have happened,” said Cox, who added that the group “unequivocally” supports open carry laws.

The open carry rallies in restaurants and other businesses — part of a push for less restrictive gun laws, including legalizing the open carry of handguns — have prompted public criticism, and the NRA appeared to join in last week.

The statement appeared on the website of the group’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, saying that the demonstrations were counterproductive, scary and “downright weird.”

“Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That’s not the Texas way. And that’s certainly not the NRA way,” the unsigned statement said. It remained on the NRA’s website early Wednesday.

Open Carry Texas, one of the groups behind the recent demonstrations, had said if the NRA didn’t retract the statement, Open Carry would withdraw its full support for the NRA.

Virginia Citizens Defense League’s (VCDL) counterparts in Pennsylvania say that her actions are unlawful and follow previous actions in changing reciprocity agreements with Florida and Arizona and VIRGINIA, as well as eliminating statutory recognition of Idaho.

Further, Kane announced, through her office staff, that she is reviewing the reciprocity/recognition agreements in place with every other State.

Just because someone had no intention of hurting another doesn’t necessarily excuse legal culpability. People can get arrested in car accidents where there’s injury or death, even when alcohol isn’t involved. Injuries or deaths in industrial accidents can result in big fines and civil suits, although rarely time behind bars.

Forty or 50 times each day — 14,000 to 19,000 times a year — someone in this country is shot and wounded accidentally. In one year — 2010 — more than 600 people died in accidental shootings, and that does not include suicides.

A New York Times report last year uncovered an undercount of children’s deaths from accidental shootings, in part because how those deaths are reported and classified varies from state to state.

What happens after all these deaths, however, is apparently even more variable. There don’t seem to be solid, consistent numbers from states or nationwide on when and why people are charged after accidental shootings — and there should be.

One reason (which can be a sound one) for the inconsistencies is that prosecutorial discretion is at work, and when a family member is killed, law enforcement may be understandably reluctant to add to a family’s suffering with any charges, at least not right away. In Boerne, Texas, where last week a 2-year-old took a loaded gun out of the console of his parents’ Jeep while they were moving boxes and shot and killed himself, a police lieutenant said, “We want to give them time to grieve and make the necessary arrangements, and then after that we can talk to them.”

A dead child, a dead parent, a dead spouse is probably punishment enough — a lifetime sentence, in its own way.

Bail was raised Monday to $100,000 for a Newmarket man charged with felony reckless conduct, who told police he was shooting inside his 6 Salmon St. residence aiming for — and successfully killing — a groundhog, according to court documents.

The actions of Matthew Henderson, 37, and Stephen Givens, 25, of North Berwick, Maine, prompted a rapid and heavy police response Friday morning after reports of multiple gunshots heard from within his residence at 6 Salmon St.

An affidavit indicates police have periodically checked on Henderson due to concerned friends and coworkers. On Jan. 12, he sent a text message to a friend stating he had eight loaded magazines with armor-piercing ammunition and that if police came to his house one more time “it would end in a shoot-out.”

According to court documents obtained by Foster’s Daily Democrat following a Monday morning hearing at 10th Circuit District Division Brentwood Court at Rockingham Superior Courthouse in Brentwood, no animal body or blood was found at the scene.

The U.S.' top military official on Tuesday defended the controversial prisoner swap that freed Army sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, even as he said the military would look into the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture.

"Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said in a statement Tuesday morning.

"Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred," the statement continued. But Dempsey defended the Obama administration's decision amid a burgeoning controversy over its decision to free five prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl's release.

After the weekend prisoner exchange, several soldiers who served with Bergdahl said he willingly deserted his unit. And Republican lawmakers have leveled claims that the swap was illegal because it proceeded without a timely notification of Congress.

Dempsey said the deal presented the "last, best opportunity" to recover Bergdahl. He said freeing U.S. soldiers from enemy captivity is a priority regardless of the speculation about Bergdahl's conduct. And he thanked those who tried, and ultimately succeeded, in securing Bergdahl's release.

Here's Dempsey's full statement:

"In response to those of you interested in my personal judgments about the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family. Finally, I want to thank those who for almost five years worked to find him, prepared to rescue him, and ultimately put themselves at risk to recover him."

This map was produced from a scholarly study by researchers from Boston Children's Hospital and published this March in JAMA Internal Medicine. It shows a correlation between strong gun laws and firearms fatalities

States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and
states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of
suicide and homicide.

Direct causation could not be determined, but at the very least, such
a strong correlation should make it clear that existing public policy
in many states with lax gun laws comes at a high price: more dead
mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and others.

In addition, higher firearm ownership rates were also heavily
correlated with higher firearm fatalities, and lower ownership rates
were correlated with stronger gun control legislation.

And if you are going to say "Well, that's just one study..." remember that the reason that government funding has been cut for ANYTHING which can provide this type of data has been cut on the basis that it could be used to "promote gun control".

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Think about it--isn't the premise of open carry that this becomes acceptable behaviour? People should see someone walking around with a weapon and assume that everything is OK.

Isn't the idea that people are in a state of code yellow?

No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself". You are simply aware that the world is a potentially unfriendly place and that you are prepared to defend yourself, if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and realize that "I may have to shoot today".

In this file photo released on Aug. 30, 2009 by the Glynn County Police Department, Guy Heinze Jr. is shown. Glynn County Police Chief Matt Doering said two new pieces of information led authorities to charge Heinze late Friday Sept. 4, 2009. After a week working a case so murky they could not say whether a killer was on the loose, police said Guy Heinze Jr. was responsible for the slayings he reported and charged him with eight counts of first-degree murder. Among the dead were seven of his rel | AP

Dressed in orange jailhouse garb rather than the suit he wore at trial, Guy Heinze Jr. bowed his head as a judge sentenced him to life in prison with no chance of parole. A quirk of legal maneuvering had spared Heinze from a possible death sentence for the 2009 beating deaths of his father and seven others.

Relatives of the victims said they never wanted to see Heinze executed.

"That's the easy way out," said Diane Isenhower, whose ex-husband and four children were among the eight people beaten to death four years ago inside a cramped mobile home they shared with Heinze.

"From day one, we told them, 'No death penalty,'" said Hazel Sumner, who identified herself as a cousin to Isenhower's family.

Heinze, 26, was sentenced Thursday afternoon in Glynn County Superior Court less than a week after a jury convicted him of malice murder in the Aug. 29, 2009, slayings. Prosecutors dropped the death penalty as an option last week as part of a last-minute deal with defense attorneys that allowed them to avoid a hung jury.

Prosecutors said Heinze had been smoking crack cocaine when he killed his father and the other victims, all members of an extended family. They said he killed the first victim in a dispute over a bottle of prescription painkillers he wanted to steal, then killed the others to avoid getting caught.

Each of the victims died from multiple crushing blows to the head from what police believe was a shotgun barrel, jurors heard. Autopsies showed they suffered a combined total of more than 220 wounds. The murder weapon was never found.

Although the attack happened in the night and most of the victims were found in bed, defense attorneys argued a single assailant couldn't possibly have inflicted such carnage. They insisted that Heinze would not kill loved ones over a bottle of weak prescription pills and that police ignored evidence and alternate suspects in a rush to accuse him.

Heinze had told police he found the victims' bodies after returning from a late night away from home.

Let's not forget Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972). Don't forget that Douglas was actually on the court at the time of US v. Miller (you did actually read the decision--didn't you?).

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that
amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected
by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping
and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the
power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever
on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership
or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939,
the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession
of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable
relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated
Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally
understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms
that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren
Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice
expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I
cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any
limit on state authority to do anything.

Sorry, but saying the Second Amendment is not related to the militia is not only textually incorrect, it is historically and legally incorrect.

As I said in another post, if you want to exercise your Second Amendment right, you can get all the gear paid if you join the national guard, which is the Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 militia. That also points out the silliness of asserting that the Second Amendment right is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated
Militia.”

You've got to pay for one (and go through the legal procedures) to be able to own a firearm if it is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated
Militia.”

That clause in the US Constitution is what makes a militia "constitutional", not quotes from the founding fathers.

OK, even though I think the Heller and McDonald "decisions" are complete bullshit--I should at least quote them as well:

Scalia from Heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators
and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep
and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v.
State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American
Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not
undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of
the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Alito from McDonald:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law
that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that
the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our
holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as
“prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip
op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal
respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil
every law regulating firearms.

I know that Heller held that registration and background checks were A-OK.

No matter how you look at it--an unfettered right to personal arms is a fantasy.

It will be even more of a fantasy as Heller and McDonald are dissected in law journals and found to be composed of horseshit.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

The second example comes to us from the Lone Star State, which is second to none for its robust gun culture. We applaud Texans for that, but a small number have recently crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness.

Now we love AR-15s and AKs as much as anybody, and we know that these sorts of semiautomatic carbines are among the most popular, fastest selling firearms in America today. Texas, independent-minded and liberty-loving place that it is, doesn't ban the carrying of loaded long guns in public, nor does it require a permit for this activity. Yet some so-called firearm advocates seem determined to change this.

Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places.

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms.

Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.

As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises (more information can be found here and here). In other words, the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community.

More to the point, it's just not neighborly, which is out of character for the big-hearted residents of Texas. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way.

In summary, NRA certainly does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants. We think people are intelligent enough to resolve these issues in a reasonable way for themselves. But when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights. Firearm owners face enough challenges these days; we don't need to be victims of friendly fire.

It is unfortunate that an organization that claims to be dedicated to the preservation of gun rights would attack another organization fighting so hard for those rights in Texas. The fact is that the NRA hasn’t been able to get open carry passed in Texas since the right was first taken away from us when Jim Crow laws were passed in the 1860s, making us one of only 5 states where it is still illegal. The NRA has refused to learn for themselves how Open Carry Texas (OCT) conducts itself other than what the liberal media and Bloomberg funded gun control extremists have falsely portrayed. The real ignorance in their statement is that it was completely unnecessary. OCT – along with Come And Take It Texas, Texas Carry and Gun Rights Across America - has already changed its methods and the whole world is aware of that. The more the NRA continues to divide its members by attacking some aspects of gun rights instead of supporting all gun rights, the more support it will lose. Already, OCT members are posting pictures of themselves cutting up their life membership cards. If they do not retract their disgusting and disrespectful comments, OCT will have no choice but to withdraw its full support of the NRA and establish relationships with other gun rights organizations that fight for ALL gun rights, instead of just paying them lip service the way the NRA appears to be doing. The NRA should have instead released a statement to the effect that it applauds our groups for coming together and finding new methods to promote safe and responsible open carry.

Do you really think it was guns that kept the Japanese from Invading the Continental US?

Are you people really that ignorant?

The range of a heavy bomber during WWII was around 3000 miles. That means that whatever mission the plane flew it would have to be able to get back home (or are you silly enough to think the bombers would have landed on enemy territory and said "hey, could you fill 'er up--we need to get home?").

Germany would have been the more likely candidate to bomb the US, and even had a bomber on the drawing boards which could have done that. Fortunately, Hitler was a terrible military mind and went into battle without being properly prepared.

Anyway, Japan is roughly 10,000 miles from the US mainland. As you may know (but you are probably too ignorant) that Gen. Doolittle had to launch his raid on Tokyo via aircraft carrier (as was also the case with the Pearl Harbour raid) since most planes couldn't have made the distance across the Pacific Ocean (oe even the Atlantic).

But, I hate to break it to you--the Japanese DID bomb the US mainland, but due to the size of the aircraft (among other things), this event is not too well known:

Yes, the Japanese bombed and shelled the US mainland. Of course, it was with little effect due to the weaponry not being powerful. Not to mention there were a lot of other reasons Japan wasn't going to bother with the US mainland (hint--you would have had a lot more to fear from Germany, but that's another post).

And while gun loons like to say that Japan was deterred from attacking the US because of civilian guns and use a bogus quote to back that up: the reality is that civilian guns weren't a deterrent.

It was the practicality and necessity of attacking the US mainland that was the real deterrent from any SIGNIFICANT attack on the US mainland: not civilian guns.

According to the poll, 55 percent of Americans prefer that retailers and restauranteurs don't allow guns, while only 32 percent prefer that they do. The poll found a partisan divide, with a no-gun policy preferred by Democrats 72 percent to 19 percent, and by independents 48 percent to 34 percent. Republicans said they preferred establishments that allow guns 50 percent to 41 percent.

Monday, June 2, 2014

The U.S. House on Thursday passed legislation to provide an additional $20 million to incentivize states to submit more records into the federal instant background-check system, handing gun-control advocates a modest win on the issue after a series of high-profile defeats at the federal level.
The amendment to a broader spending bill would bring National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) grant funding to about $78 million. The 2014 level is $59 million, up from $18 million in fiscal 2013. It passed by a vote of 260-145, with one member voting “present.”

Our national criminal background-check system is only as good as the
data you put in it, and right now all the information isn’t getting into
the system,” the six representatives said in a joint statement after
the vote. “When this happens, we can’t enforce the law, and criminals,
domestic abusers, or dangerously mentally ill individuals who otherwise
wouldn’t pass a background check can slip through the cracks and buy
guns.”

Let's be honest shall we?

The ONLY reason we have a problem with the states not supplying the data on felons and the dangerously ill is that the NRA pushed, hard, to make compliance with the NICS data base voluntary --- and then worked just as hard, if not harder, at the state legislature level to keep compliance from being funded.

While the FBI is the keeper of the various state data bases that comprise the NICS data base, the actual individual data bases belong to the states.

Incentivizing the states is a great start, and helping them to comply is a good idea (some states are badly strapped for funds) but it should be done in conjunction with making compliance compulsory.

We need to make it harder for the dangerously mentally ill to get guns by any means - FFL dealers, but also those who are selling guns at gun shows and private sales.

It is in the interest of gun manufacturers to keep gun sales easy and without restriction even for the most dangerous people -- the drug users, the dangerously mentally ill, and the violent felons. They sell guns to the prohibited people, and then they sell guns to the gun fetishists for self-defense against the people who should not have guns.

After making it EASIER for the dangerously mentally ill to get guns in
the first place, they then try to blame mental health issues for the
problem, when too easy gun access is clearly the problem.

And if anyone is terrorized, intimidated, injured or killed, hey, what's a little blood, so long as the balance sheet for the gun manufacturers continues to be black, and the radical right thinks they have a wedge issue?

This report contains an interesting piece of information. The distraught mom admitted that there had been an earlier incident in which the little girl got a-hold of a gun and pointed it at her mother. My theory has long been that the people who suffer these types of tragedies are not experiencing their first mishap. Negligent gun owners are repeat offenders. They keep repeating the misuse of guns until they're stopped.